DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, and Species I in the reply filed on 8/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/6/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first constant b satisfies -0.15 ≤ b ≤ 0.8” (emphasis added). While Specification para 0048 states a general correlation that the “first constant b” is “related to the type of graphite and the compaction density of the negative electrode”, the Specification does not specify a particular correlation of the “first constant b”, nor is the Specification clear to one of ordinary skill how the “first constant b” would be obtained or selected to conform to the range of “b” based on the type of graphite and compaction density. In addition the “first constant b” is not a known theorem nor derived from a known theorem in the art. As such, the Specification lacks written description for containing “subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art”. Claims 2-12 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Claim 2 (dependent on claim 1) similarly recites “a second constant b’ satisfies -0.15 ≤ b’ ≤ 0.8” (emphasis added). While Specification para 0049 similarly states a general correlation that the “second constant b’” is “related to the type of graphite and the compaction density of the negative electrode”, the Specification does not specify a particular correlation of the “second constant b’”, nor is the Specification clear to one of ordinary skill how the “second constant b’” would be obtained or selected to conform to the range of “b’” based on the type of graphite and compaction density. In addition the “second constant b’” is not a known theorem nor derived from a known theorem in the art. As such, the Specification lacks written description for containing “subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art”. Claim 6 is also rejected as depending on claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first parameter R1 related to an amount of rebound Dd2-1 of the cell in a fully charged state” (emphasis added), however claim 1 does not specify how the “first parameter R1” is then “related to” the “amount of rebound Dd2-1”, thus rendering claim 1 indefinite as to how the “first parameter R1” is then intended to be “related to” the “amount of rebound Dd2-1”. Claims 2-12 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “an amount of rebound Dd2-1 of the cell in a fully charged state” (emphasis added), rendering the claim indefinite since: 1) the amount of “rebound” changes between a 1st charge, to a 100th charge, to a 1000th charge, etc. and thus is unknown if the number of charge is unknown; and 2) the scope for the phrase “fully charged state” is unknown (i.e. 100% charged? Approximately 100% charged? charged sufficiently to be functional? Etc.). Claim 2 similarly recites “an amount of rebound Dde-1 of the cell” (emphasis added) as claim 1, and is similarly rejected as claim 1. Claims 2-12 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “a first constant b satisfies -0.15 ≤ b ≤ 0.8” (emphasis added), rendering the claim unclear as to: 1) how the first constant is calculated; and 2) how one of ordinary skill would select or obtain a particular value for b. Claim 2 similarly recites “a second constant b’ satisfies -0.2 ≤ b’ ≤ 1.5” (emphasis added) as claim 1, and similarly for 1) and 2) above, is also rejected as claim 1. Claims 2-12 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “uncharged state of the cell” (emphasis added), rendering the claim indefinite since the scope for the phrase “uncharged state” is unknown (i.e. less than 100% charged? Approximately less than 100% charged? Half charge remaining? Zero charge remaining? Etc.). Claims 2-12 are also rejected as depending on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a second parameter R2 related to an amount of rebound Dde-1 of the cell in a cycle-end state” (emphasis added), however claim 2 does not specify how the “second parameter R2” is then “related to” the “amount of rebound Dde-1”, thus rendering claim 2 indefinite as to how the “second parameter R2” is then intended to be “related to” the “amount of rebound Dde-1”. Claim 6 is also rejected as depending on claim 2.
Claim 3 (dependent on claim 1) recites “w and s satisfy: 0.22 ≤ w/s ≤ 0.42” (emphasis added), with claim 1 reciting “w satisfies: 7%≤w≤50%” (emphasis added). Claim 3 is indefinite as to whether the “w” is intended to be ‘7’ for the ‘7%’ (or ‘50’ for the ‘50%’) or 0.07 for the ‘7%’ (or ‘0.5’ for the ‘50%’). Claim 7 (dependent on claim 3) recites “a ratio of w to s” (emphasis added), and is similarly rejected as claim 3.
Claim 9 (dependent on claim 1) recites “a weight ratio of the compaction-functional loosening agent to the active material is m, m/w satisfies: 0.5% ≤ m/w ≤ 25%” (emphasis added). Claim 9 is indefinite as to whether the “w” is intended to be ‘7’ for the ‘7%’ (or ‘50’ for the ‘50%’) or 0.07 for the ‘7%’ (or ‘0.5’ for the ‘50%’) and similarly whether “m” is intended to be a whole number percent or a fractional percent (i.e. is “m” intended to be ‘X%’ or ‘0.X%’). Claims 10 and 11 are also rejected as depending on claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2023127371 is relevant for teaching a cylindrical battery comprising a casing and a cell, wherein the cell comprises positive and negative electrodes and multiple separators, wherein the negative electrode comprises an active material of Si and graphite each at a particular weight%, the casing having a particular thickness, and the cell having a particular rebound amount according to fig. 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights